Global Warming Validated

[The Czech Republic 0]

This thread wasn't because I needed self-affirmation,

Wait, it WASN'T?!?!?!

Suck on it, Vyce.

[Justice 0]

It's hilarious that they included Chris Landsea, the guy who left the IPCC, in the article.  A global warming skeptic was on the IPCC!  And the paper that he got all huffy and left over was co-authored by another skeptic!  Landsea was the only one on the panel who had any problems with it.

 

So the whole crux of the article is that Science doesn't publish global warming articles by social anthropologists.

Argumentative flaws:

 

That's not why they turned down his research; they said it was 'widely dispersed on the internet'.

 

And what does it matter if he's a social anthropologist? He was simply taking a survey that said "Well, most climatologists don't believe that global warming is something that's actually happening". He wasn't actually making a judgement on the problem or not, he was simply showing that Eric's claim of "A vast majority believe that this is happening and is the reason why". What the heck is wrong with a social anthropologist doing a fucking survey?

 

Dude, sloppy sloppy work.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Justice

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

A. The part you quoted by me wasn't even about the social anthropologist.

 

B. If you're going to read 1000 articles and tell whether the research therein is supportive or not of anthropogenic climate change, you damn well better have a strong knowledge of climate change.

 

And I would think you would have to actually read and understand the science behind the articles in order to determine whether they supported the notion or not, Justice.

 

C. That telegraph article has a strong bias (as evidenced by the 2 people that they talk to in it) and is very short--I'm sure there was more than one reason that Science rejected the anthropologist's study. It doesn't even say where the "widely dispersed on the internet" claim comes from. I bet that it's what Peiser told the journalist.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll note that when the Rather memos were FIRST mentioned as being fake, the left decided that attacking the Freeper who mentioned the possibility was better than actually dealing with the charges.

 

And we saw how well that ended up working out.

 

Fact is, we KNOW why the article was rejected. The journal SAID why it was rejected and their reason, to be gentle, was bullshit. Any assumptions you choose to make are based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

Funny, you criticize this article criticizing the journal for only showing one side of the story --- but seem to miss that the journal is accused of doing the very same thing.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

A. The part you quoted by me wasn't even about the social anthropologist.

I only meant to concentrate on the last line, but I just wanted to get to bed. Oops.

 

B.  If you're going to read 1000 articles and tell whether the research therein is supportive or not of anthropogenic climate change, you damn well better have a strong knowledge of climate change. 

 

And I would think you would have to actually read and understand the science behind the articles in order to determine whether they supported the notion or not, Justice.

 

Uh huh? I'd agree with you if he were saying something new about it, I'd agree. But he's not. He's simply analyizing whether every climatologist explicitly believes that climate change is coming vis a vis humans or not, not making an independent decision. You keep talking as though he's disproving the idea of global warming, missing the entire function of what he was doing was rather

 

To give you the hypocrasy you might have missed in your blind rush to prove it all wrong:

 

Naomi Oreskes

 

Published by Science with favorable looks on the stance good 'ole Benny debunks, published in December. Oddly enough she isn't a climatologist either. She's a geologist and historian, with an environmental background. Peiser major is Social Anthropology, but his main research focus is into 'appocolyptic catastrophes' and how humans react to them. He probably knows just as much on the subject as Naomi did.

 

Face it, being a OMG SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGIST means little to shit when you are:

 

A) Not providing a new viewpoint on the subject, but simply eliminating the oft-mistaken idea that there is an overwhelming agreement on the subject.

 

B) A recent contemporary of you with just about as much experience in the same field published an article directly contradicting yours.

 

C.  That telegraph article has a strong bias (as evidenced by the 2 people that they talk to in it) and is very short--I'm sure there was more than one reason that Science rejected the anthropologist's study.  It doesn't even say where the "widely dispersed on the internet" claim comes from.  I bet that it's what Peiser told the journalist.

 

Of course, this could be the case. Considering, though, that he trawled the same database as Oreskes, and followed along what seems to be a similar methodology, it's very suspicious that they would turn down one but not the other. In all likelihood, if one is found to be scientifically unsound due to methodology or otherwise, the same is true for the other.

 

Which leads us back to the same point: Holy shit, not everyone agrees and it is far from universal fact that the Earth warming is the doomsday siren. Perhaps that's the best way to put it all.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You make strong points, as usual, Justice. I did know that Oreskes was a geologist and I don't think I was being hypocritical. Geologists do work on climate change quite frequently. I don't think that Peiser has much (non-social) scientific background at all. And I still contend that you would have to have an understanding of the science behind the (probably arcane) research to determine whether or not a particular article supports or does not support the notion of anthropogenic climate change.

 

Also, upon further investigation, Peiser has worked as an (oily) right-wing think-tanker (International Policy Network).

 

There's a discussion of the whole controversy here, at the Crooked Timber blog.

 

The critics on these sites blast Peiser hard (he claimed that 34 of the articles challenged the consensus and the critics find 4 or 5 at most), but also question Oreskes, although her claim that no peer-reviewed pieces have challenged the consensus view seems to be holding up to scrutiny.

 

In other words, Science probably didn't publish Peiser because they had already published the same study only done less poorly.

 

What I think is clear, though, is that the Telegraph article basing its whole argument mainly around Peiser is crap.

[Justice 0]

You make strong points, as usual, Justice. I did know that Oreskes was a geologist and I don't think I was being hypocritical. Geologists do work on climate change quite frequently. I don't think that Peiser has much (non-social) scientific background at all. And I still contend that you would have to have an understanding of the science behind the (probably arcane) research to determine whether or not a particular article supports or does not support the notion of anthropogenic climate change.

 

Also, upon further investigation, Peiser has worked as an (oily) right-wing think-tanker (International Policy Network).

 

There's a discussion of the whole controversy here, at the Crooked Timber blog.

 

The critics on these sites blast Peiser hard (he claimed that 34 of the articles challenged the consensus and the critics find 4 or 5 at most), but also question Oreskes, although her claim that no peer-reviewed pieces have challenged the consensus view seems to be holding up to scrutiny.

 

In other words, Science probably didn't publish Peiser because they had already published the same study only done less poorly.

 

What I think is clear, though, is that the Telegraph article basing its whole argument mainly around Peiser is crap.

A fair rebuttal. I understand that geologists do know something of climate change, a man studying catalsymic and appoclyptic change would probably know something, too. Either way, it's neither's specialty, and I doubt that it truly should come off as a fault since all they are are analyzing where other people stand rather than new data. But this is just how I look at it.

 

I actually read the Crooked Timbers blog, and the comments discussion is very interesting. At first, it did seem to me that Peiser hadn't done much, though some of the rebuttals to it were okay enough. But if you really read the comments, it kinda casts doubt on both studies, consider that the ones in question were likely in Oreskes' study as well. I find it a bit presumptious that the author of the blog instantly cast down Peiser for possible faulty methodology without knowing anything about Oreskes' own methodology.

 

I'll take note of your 'think tank' mention, but that doesn't mean Oreskes is clear, either. People gravitate to groups that agree with them. Why did Peiser get hired by that think tank? Probably because he agreed with them long before they hired him. Just because they got hired out by an oil company doesn't mean their opinion is automatically tainted: It just means that they have high-profile opinions that might be listened to. It's the same with any profession: If you find a smart guy who agrees with you, take him to your side.

 

Just as well, Oreskes is a Environmental History professor. I don't think I have yet to meet a non-liberal one in my college career (My own had been teaching the Environmental History class at our college since Earth Day and is massively left), and I don't really think that Oreskes is any different. The nice thing about being liberal in college is that yuo don't need to get hired by a company to be in strong company, especially in her department. Remember the study from Berkley that said Concservatives were Hardwired differently than normal people? You don't need to go to outside sources when you are already amongest friends.

 

Overall, my entire view on this situation is: Global Warming is happening. We are a part of it. How big a part, and how unnatural the cycle has yet to be proven. I'd like to see some long range studies done, because right now what we are doing is similar to saying a person who is sweating is obviously unhealthy: That might be the case, but we lack the knowledge of what was going on before to really make a good, well-informed decision.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Justice, debating you on this forum is a breath of fresh air. Please stick around.

 

And I agree with everything you posted. I'm gonna keep an eye on Crooked Timber and the other linked blogs to see if they scrutinize the Oreskes study sometime soon.

[Justice 0]

Hey, it's just Powerplay with a new T-Shirt.

 

But the compliment is accepted.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Are you two done sucking each other's wangs so that now we can go back to flaming each other?...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Are you two done sucking each other's wangs so that now we can go back to flaming each other?...

I saw this coming as soon as I typed the last post.

 

But I'll start some more partisan bickering now...go to the Laura Bush is funny thread.